Here are three concerns, among many: 1) resignations, 2) breaches of Anti-discrimination law, 3) democratic process

1) Resignations

In the AUT in 2005, around one hundred members, many of them Jewish, resigned from the union. We got some of them back, but there is, once again, a wave of resignations. I don't know how many it is, but it will doubtless increase in the run up to Congress, and perhaps after. I think it's likely that this number will exceed three figures again. In my own small department, three members have talked to me about resigning from the union. They all oppose a boycott, they will all ignore any Congress decisions that urge a breaking of links, but they are all pretty furious that the issue is unresolved, and is taking up centre stage again. (They are all, by the way, very critical of Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza)

I'm concerned about a further wave of resignations. Are other union activists concerned, or is the reaction simply 'good riddance'?

2) Breaches of Anti-Discrimination law

I don't think people who advocate a boycott are (in general) motivated by hatred of Jews. I think they are primarily concerned about the appalling situation facing Palestinians in Gaza, and the West Bank. Neither do I think that people who raise concerns about antisemitism are (in general), motivated by a desire to stifle debate.

Both these claims have this in common: They are claims of bad faith, and it poisons the discussion to work on the basis of bad faith.

However, there are corresponding concerns that can be expressed in good faith - about the effects of policies and claims. So, it's possible to be concerned that raising the issue of anti-Semitism has the effect of 'stifling debate' without attributing that particular motivation to anyone. I understand that concern, even though I think it's completely misplaced: no-one could suggest that the debate on the list has been 'stifled.'

Equally: let's attend properly to the concerns about antisemitism. Here is one way in which they can be framed: The legal opinions to the leadership and SFC are not known to us as a collectivity. But it's in the public domain - and just obvious - that one problem is with discrimination law. People should take a look at the Race Relations Act (1976) and its amendment (2003).

For example, look at the account of harassment in the 2003 amendment:

Harassment 3A. - (1) A person subjects another to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in section 1(1B) where, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, he engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of -

(a) violating that other person's dignity, or

(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or
offensive environment for him.

(2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in
paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) only if, having regard to all the
circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other
person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.

Are we in the clear on this? I don't think so, though I'm no lawyer. I'm not even sure if we're in the clear on this in relation to the conduct of the activists list in the last few days. The scope of the 2003 amendment is quite wide. It seems likely that the new resolution to Congress will licence activities by UCU members which are 1) unwanted 2) have the effect of creating a hostile environment for Israeli academics and 3) do so on grounds of their national origins.

Now, I have no doubt that it's possible to come up with ways of edging away from this conclusion (it's an institutional boycott, it's on the basis of institutional affiliation not national identity, and so on. Mona Baker made all these claims, of course.) I think it's pretty hopeless to argue out those qualifications, partly because the Act instructs us to have regard in particular to the perception of the person victimised, partly becase of the phrase 'has the purpose or effect' and we know already that some Israeli academics detect a hostile
environment in the UK, and attribute it to the action of the Union. We have members who are Israeli and members who have institutional affiliations to Israeli Universities. I'm sure that even Haim and Gavin can see that these sorts of concerns are not hysterical.

It's plausible, then, to think that this will be resolved not at Congress, but in court. That means using members' subscriptions to defend the union against a claim that we are infringing the Race Relations Act. Maybe we'll win, maybe not. Maybe, just as some may think 'good riddance' about resignations, others will take a gung-ho attitude, and look forward to a fight in the courts, in which we take on a Jewish member or members who think and argue that we are in breach of the Race Relations Act (2003 Amendment). Any reasonable reading of the clause above will reveal why they might think that they have a case.

I don't look forward to it. It's, at the minimum, not particularly good PR for a union that appeals to the RRA in defence of its members. I'm concerned about it - and not only because I think we'll lose, and will deserve to lose.

3) Democratic process.

Everyone from me to Socialist Worker (which is quite a long way) knows that, if a boycott were put to a vote of the members it would be 'heavily defeated'. Yet we are embarking on a process in which we will probably continue to support and license the boycott campaign, and we will encourage individual acts of boycotting. This is not what our members want us to do - as anyone who spends their time talking to ordinary members knows. Congress is not representative of the membership on this matter, and pretty much everyone understands and more or less openly admits that. Again, people can respond with arguments that delegates are delegates and not representatives, go on about the limits of plebiscitary democracy, or say that our delegates have the right to discuss anything they want.

But even accepting all this (which I don't), it does nothing to close the obvious gap between the concerns, views and priorities of the membership and the obsessions of the activists list.

This reflects back on the issue of resignations: the pat answer is to say that members should stay and work through the democratic channels, but for a series of reasons this is increasingly less effective as an argument - indeed, it's becoming a joke. Our structures are very poorly responsive to the political representation of ordinary members, to put it politely. Part of the reason is structural, part of the reason is specific abuses of democratic norms by boycotters - including opposing the attempt to get an indicative ballot last year.

So to summarise: we're facing dozens, perhaps hundreds of resignations (again), we're likely to end up in court - possibly losing a claim under the RRA - and all this on a policy on which we're out of line with the mass membership.

Jon Pike, UCU NEC elect